Angela Rayner set up to fail

[billysboy]

I can help think that Angela Rayner has been set up to fail on her housing targets
having promised to build ( not convert old offices ) 1.5m new homes by the end of her term the government seems woefully behind
for the next 4 years 370k homes will need to be built each year to achieve this as currently 225 k new homes last year

I can’t help think that she is doomed to fail without massive planning reforms and a huge social housing building programme

She’s a modern day John Prescott. As much as I don’t care for either of them, I definitely think AR gets a harder time for her background than he ever did because she’s a woman.

@skymagentatwoYour post is horrible. But because I’m feeling kind, you need to know that “mealy mouthed” does not mean what you appear to think it means.

No one would build atthe rate needed

developers are sitting in lane. Deliberately building out slowly to keep prices up nIf they built at the rate required house prices would drop

and no one is prepared to chivvy up development because of that

@Ukholidaysaregreat "I love Angela Raynor".

UK wildlife, nature and bio diversity certainly does not. She's a disaster to all our child's futures.

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/planning-bill-breaks-labours-nature-promises-say-wildlife-trusts-and-rspb

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/22/wildlife-charities-urge-labour-to-scrap-licence-to-kill-nature-in-planning-bill

https://www.rspb.org.uk/whats-happening/news/uk-government-risks-sending-nature-into-freefall

https://www.badgertrust.org.uk/post/badgers-under-threat-why-the-new-planning-bill-spells-disaster-for-wildlife

https://bylinetimes.com/2025/03/26/labour-housing-planning-and-infrastructure-bill/

Just to name a few....

Agree with this. She gives us northern women a bad name.

Ever heard of Nye Bevan?

@skymagentatwo I second that you don't know what mealy mouthed means.
I think certain newspapers deliberately choose really bad photos of her. When I've seen her on the television, she looks very different. Of course she's judged differently because of her sex. However I was disappointed in her using 'scum', even if it is factual. I agree that she needs to grow as a politician and learn to play the game. Without adult, non emotional conversations about immigration, we aren't going to solve the housing crisis, without paving over our whole country. Not taking Granny in and divorces are a drop in the Ocean. Granny and in particular Grandad, aren't dying at 55+ anymore.

Sigh.
Imagine if we had a properly socialist government.
One that would set up a house-building department, compulsorily purchase land, poach employees (and contractors) from the current big companies by offering higher pay, 25 days holiday and great pensions, and lots of apprenticeships.

Then we could get the houses built.

Imagine if the government then retained the houses for social rent, instead of selling them all.

It will never happen, but wouldn't it be great?

Why is 'scum' factual?

Me too. I’m very much hoping she’ll be Labour’s first female leader. She’s an incredibly impressive woman.

@myplace and @Acommonreader was not my area of research but did touch on housing and the rise of single households is huge. In the 1970’s 10% of households had a single adult as head of household, now it’s around 33%. It’s a societal change. I see it in my own row of houses. At one point 4 of the 8 had a single person in, it has changed but it is still 3 of 8 in 3 bed houses with much bigger than average gardens. The independence of women and people living much longer are the main reasons so in theory it should be celebrated but in practice it’s a housing disaster. I have three friends divorcing currently all in their fifties all used to big houses. There is no way they are not buying as big a property as they can afford when they get their settlements.

I think the Tories are a bit scared of Rayner. Reform too. Hence the vile abuse thrown at her.

I think it’s only a matter of time before she replaces Starmer as PM. It was in the news last week that she wants to scrap child benefit for ‘middle class’ families. But according to her that means where the highest earner is bringing in at least £50k per annum. So by that justification it will mean that a household where one parent earns £50k and the other is on £20k wouldn’t get child benefit anymore, but a household where both parents are in £49k would. Where is the logic in that?

I hope she does become PM because then it will mean the government becomes even more unpopular with the electorate and are destined to lose the next general election.

I can understand them being scared of Reform but not Rayner.

Well I think she’s got something that a lot of current leaders don’t have; a degree of charisma and a fighting spirit. If she even achieves half of her targets it will be a major achievement and more than any other politician in her position has done.

Labour won’t win an election by being technocrats. Reform should be worried by her. Rayner kicks them about in Parliament pretty easily. Politics is not all about what universities people go to; it’s a campaign

it will mean that a household where one parent earns £50k and the other is on £20k wouldn’t get child benefit anymore, but a household where both parents are in £49k would. Where is the logic in that?

You mean like it was when the Cameron government first brought in means testing?

She’s a tough woman I can’t see her agreeing to something impossible . She won’t hit targets but even a layman in the street could have seen that . All the ideals and no idea springs to mind .

Rayner isn’t ‘set up to fail’ in that she is the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing. She is the person in charge of housing & planning policy in the U.K. If structural planning reform and major changes to the law are required, it’s her responsibility to lead that change and drive it through the system. That’s what successful CEOs do in the private sector and it’s what successful SoS’s do in government, eg Gordon Brown at the Treasury & Michael Gove at Education.

She may be ‘set up to fail’ in terms of her lack of the necessary experience, credibility & qualifications to take on such a senior role in which transformational structural change is required in a highly complex area of public policy. In simple terms, she may be hopelessly out of her depth in that job, as so many senior politicians are. Most obviously Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. We’ll see, but I know where my money would be.

Er yes!

Regardless of what Cameron did or didn’t do, you can hardly say that taking it away from the family in the example I gave above and allowing the other family to keep it makes any sense.

It never did make any sense is the point I made.

Whilst I don't think it will be achieved, I don't see it as being set up to fail.

My own view is that we need to look at housing being brought into full time use or built.

• Ending AirbNB and similar short term lets,
• Repurposing vacant commercial property (think ground floor with flats above),
• Tackling the money laundering use of shops such as Turkish barbers and making those properties homes, and
• Vastly reducing second homes,

could get you in total at least a third of the 1.5 million target.

That's even before you deal with land banking and other restrictive practices, or making house sale and purchase less of a spivs charter.

He referred to the Tories as 'lower than vermin'.

I can't discuss housing when we are seeing immigration in such a volume that it's often referred to the size of Leeds coming here through nefarious channels.

Then landlords being asked to house them and give special rates and agreements to do so.

I cannot see how we can ever get on top if this whilst allowing this to happen. Where I live in a town we have seen extraordinary rates of building and flats going up.
I don't mind that except for the fact they're ugly. However what I do mind is why then is near by green belt constantly under threat and I believe we have lost a chunk to housing?
It doesn't make sense to me. But then neither does anything labour is doing at the moment make sense except for perhaps castrating sex offenders.

Yep. I don't think he ever apologised for his language, unlike Rayner. But people seem to forget she did so and bring up what she said every single time her name is mentioned.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59081482.amp